Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[orbut 3000]

Now - Orbo - "an obvious lie and a false claim"

What do you base that off?

Wayne

Wayne, good question, you're almost there. My observation is based on the following statement:
"Our Technology produces clean energy Mechanically, by altering the the once believed conservative field of gravity - allowing us to supply endless and abdundant clean Energy."


That statement is obviously wrong.


You should re-read the thread more carefully. User @MarkE has explained very well why your claim is at odds with reality.
Don't give up yet, you're almost there.


orbut

[mondrasek]

Your assumption that some device can magically collect the lost energy is a fallacy.  Place any mechanism that you like in communication with the risers and show that you don't lose energy.  You cannot.  But go ahead and prove me wrong.  Every um of movement by the riser results in permanently lost energy.  I have shown the physical basis for this and the associated math.  If you want to argue differently, do more than exclaiming "No it isn't."I do insist, because it is fundamental.  You cannot collect what you lose lifting, because the very act of lifting changes the N in N*X/N² to a value greater than 1.0.

Disregarding any unexpected events, I will draw up the simplest physical device I can conceive of that shows the lift is performing Work and provide it to you tomorrow.

Meanwhile, I would still like to learn your method to find the final end of lift state that resolves the positive buoyant Forces in the current State 3.  Like I said before, I could only imagine to do that iteratively.  But I believe you could find a way to reduce the calculus to an equation that would give the final (net zero buoyant Forces) lift height.  You do have mad math skills.  Please understand that this is not a demand or requirement for our current analysis.  I am just eager to learn if there is a simple way to do what I currently find horrendously difficult.

[MarkE]

Sometimes simple things get missed.

It doesn't help if the missed things are counter intuitive.

If you assume a system can only be 100%, you must conclude that any loss means no Net Energy.

You have offered no evidence that the First Law of Energy is wrong.

If the assumption holds true - no Net Energy.

It is not an assumption, it is a law developed from countless careful observations.  You have offered zero counter evidence.

................

Yet what happens when the system is 105% then 160% or 340%

What happens if Peter Pan and Godzilla get into a smack down?  What happens if Benjamin Netanyahu declares he is a Sunni muslim?  We can hypothecate fantasies all day long.  Perhaps someday you will understand that when it comes to energy efficiency, the only value greater than 100% is undefined.

Can you as a designer choose to use components that have some losses and still have NET.

No, energy is conserved.  Again, see the First Law of Energy.  You may want to practice that because paragraph 0008 of your patent application will trigger a rejection for lack of utility because of the claim to a First Law violation.

and more over - if a standard car engine is 33% efficient - and powering a 330% efficient ZED -

Don't forget to include Captain Hook pushing from behind ...

Pretty unlikley to have enough losses that result in no Net gain.

No, it is completely impossible that you have a First Law violation.

...................

Just saying - you need to open the Box a bit.

The box that we can all hope opens once long enough for you to enter is 6' x 9'.  Then you can have plenty of time to explain your ideas to Bubba.

[MarkE]

Disregarding any unexpected events, I will draw up the simplest physical device I can conceive of that shows the lift is performing Work and provide it to you tomorrow.

Meanwhile, I would still like to learn your method to find the final end of lift state that resolves the positive buoyant Forces in the current State 3.  Like I said before, I could only imagine to do that iteratively.  But I believe you could find a way to reduce the calculus to an equation that would give the final (net zero buoyant Forces) lift height.  You do have mad math skills.  Please understand that this is not a demand or requirement for our current analysis.  I am just eager to learn if there is a simple way to do what I currently find horrendously difficult.

The method should be easy to understand:  Determine the initial net up force.  Then determine the up force as a function of lifted distance.  Solve for a change in up force equal and opposite to the initial up force. 

Where you and I diverge is this:  I am concerned only with your original problem statement that concerns your stated belief that a two riser system loses energy, while a three riser system gains energy.  I have shown that any upward movement by the riser results in net total energy loss, as necessitated by the:  E = k*N*X/N² relationship.  As demonstrated, there are enough details that must be accounted for in determining the equilibrium height that it is easy to make a mistake getting the value.  But whatever the value is, no energy is imparted to the massless, incompressible fluid, nor the massless riser(s) in changing their heights.  If you load the riser with a weight, you do three things:  You reduce the height of the new equilibrium state, you reduce the amount of lost internal energy, and you convert a fraction of that smaller lost energy into change in GPE of the raised mass.  The larger that you make the mass the smaller the net loss until you reach a limit at zero movement, zero energy imparted to the mass that then doesn't lift at all, and zero internal energy lost.  IOW, the best you can do is to never leave State 2 which means that the best that you can do is to emulate a brick.

The moment you allow the risers to lift by any amount, you lose net energy.  Since the ZED/Zydro scheme relies upon this lift to operate, it loses energy.  Adding a second, a third or M such assemblies only multiplies the loss.  The claims by HER/Zydro that they have realized any improvement in hydraulic or hydraulic / pneumatic or hydraulic / pneumatic / buoyancy schemes is false.  The claims that they have discovered any new physics is false.  The claim that they can switch buoyancy on and off is false.  The claim that they can generate energy ex nihilo is false.

[mondrasek]

BTW, I did say:
ds is distance which is another calculable (or measurable) physical fact and therefore a CONSTANT.

And you replied with:
I find it hard to believe that you flunked calculus.  But, if you want to represent that you did, who am I to argue?


Distance is an indisputable fact.  Calculus does not apply.  Distance is simply distance.   It is a measurement that has units of length.  In SI the unit of length is the meter.

Once a distance is calculated or measured it is a CONSTANT that can in no way be in dispute.